Esoteric Antiquity

Philo: the first sensus comminus:

Philo is an often forgotten scholar in the Jewish world. Writing in Greek Alexandria, his work was uncommon in his age. He is the first true philosopher. He wrote a Jewish treatise for the hellenistic scholarship of his time. He preceded Maimonides in cultivating a rationalistic theological interpretation. Like his successors, his treatise is a biblical commentary of its own. Philo lived before the redaction of the Mishnah prior to destruction of the Temple even. What his affiliation was necessarily is unknown. He was not part of the Jerusalem strife between the varied factions but was interested in the religious world at large. His remoteness from the factionalism in Israel, put him in his own category. Yet, his explanation of rabbinic law jives quite nicely with the pharisaic position. 

Philo’s philosophy is important for understanding rabbinic thought even if he isn’t explicitly mentioned by talmudic scholars. The parallels between the two are not too striking given a common religious order. Finkelstein even argues that in two different traditions: one midrash and one tosefta, references Philo’s name by “ploni”. Philo’s halakhic confusions parallel those in the Palestinian Talmud and others that are quite unique. The orality pre-canonisation proffered a connection to the outreaches of the Jewish communities as well as developing customs. His exegetical style is a running biblical commentary identical to the model of the rabbinic midrashim. Both Philo and the Sages accuse Caanan in Ham’s sin, speak of a wheel of fortune, and female light-mindedness are explicit. Bamberger numbers 41 parallels between Philo and the Sages. Though his conclusion is that Philo borrowed from the Palestinian tradition, it is more honest to assume that this was the general knowledge of people. Philo’s understanding of Jewish law is reminiscent of Jewish literature and common practice. The sensus comminus at least regionally was professed by Philo and his rabbinic counterparts.

Philo and Maimonides have much to share concerning their positions on language. It is not supernatural nor the efficacy of linguistic expression. Their allegorisation of scripture is notable. They both read the Eden story as an allegory and divine speech as metaphorical. His Decalogue experience is more miraculous than Maimonides but still holds firm to linguistic naturalism. Philo’s intellectual preoccupation translates divine power into the logos. Philo, like Maimonides, breaks down the Eden story into various metaphors. The serpent’s pleasure is voided by Adam’s intellect but not by Eve’s sensuality. Human perfection is in the true knowledge of God. It was the christians who most salvaged and utilised Philo’s writings but his thought is not too far off that of Maimonides and his Spanish brethren. 

Philo’s exegetical skills are those of his successors. He begins with philosophy and incorporates scripture as a sourcebook. He follows his contemporaries in polytheistic idolatry polemics. Philo diverges in his universalism. This could be taken in the hellenistic context to which he was writing. Philo’s esotericism is related to his directed audience. Like Halevi, Philo was speaking to the hellenised, demonstrating Jewish superiority and prosperity. His redirection of Jewish universalism from hellenistic universalism. It was the hellenism that he was fighting against. He appropriated the hellenistic model to promote Judaism. Stylistically, it is a brilliant tactic to demonstrate religious superiority using opponents’ frame. Additionally, his testimony of ideological attacks on Jews like Saadia drives his work as a polemical attack couching his true opinions which cannot be known. This framework is ideologically motivated quash anti-Jewish sentiment and demonstrate its superiority. It wasn’t just hellenism but violence. 

Philo’s admiration for the different philosophical schools landed him outside the frame of specific interest. He pulled from the pythagoreans, platonists and stoics. Philo’s model was unique in hits association as a religious philosophy. Yet, it his aristotelianism that remarkably ironic given the latter’s impact in Andalusian scholarship. Philo like, Maimonides, praised Aristotle and criticised him simultaneously. The philosopher had much to offer but was not correct on all metaphysical matters. The drawing from the Aristotelian theme points to affiliation. His conjunction of platonism and aristotelianism hints to a esotericism of religiosity. Though presented a pythagorean, he was an Aristotelian. 

Philo’s allegorisation was quite a favourite of his. Human intellectual limitation forfeits secret meanings ascertained wit hGod’s help. Allegorical interpretation is the natural solution. He perceived the biblical stories as special myths with deeper meanings. The narration was empowering for archetypical imagination and educational purposes. He does respect literal reasons but allegorisation proves a suitable answer to difficulties. A semiological approach to troublesome texts. As one example, he treats God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rbis to be a metaphor. Philo also precedes Maimonides in interpreting the three angels as foreigners instead of a prophetic vision but at the same time naturalises the event. Philo’s textual solutions fit into the semiology of oral persuasion. Philonic allegory is not necessarily novel but it is textually innovative.          

   

Philo's theological motivation in addition to his excessive allegorisation mirrors the Andalusian sages. He is considered the father of negative theology in monotheism. Philo beloved that negativity was the only method of speaking of  the ineffable incorporeal God. Allegorically, metaphors are symbolic but philosophically only negativity is prudent. Philo marked revelation as the relationship to God. Natural man cannot comprehend the infinite without his approval. Divine transcendence mitigated by divine engagement. Unlike, greek gods, the Jewish god was beyond knowledge. He could only be known if he wished to be. Providence itself is regulated in his transcendence. His use of mysteries is apparent in Ibn Ezra and Maimonides’ writings. Secrets are hidden from the masses not due to an elitist exclusivism but due to an educational  complexity. Philo’s dialectical apophatic theology oscillation between apophaticism  and divine discourse beholds the mystery. The mystery is the complicated equation that scholars comprehend. There was some ability to know of God but was extremely complex. Philo’s articulation of creation is limited. He affirms creationism albeit with unqualified matter as an additional variable finds comfort with the Andalusian sages. Speaking to a hellenistic crowd, he couched his true opinion between the complex dialectic. 

Philo’s hellenism reaches an interesting point in his association of divine power. He records God’s power as creative and regal. Both of these are never mentioned in the biblical record but the hellenistic deity did. Philo’s move is deliberate in appealing to his audience. His relation between God and the intellect is complex. At times, he seems almost dualistic just as the hellenists believed. The intellect or logos is the viewing to the world, the part God shoes. God is the ultimate transcendent and his logos is how the people understand. The logos is the angel visiting the biblical characters. The logos is the perpetrator of divine will. It is the logos that sends the manna not God himself. Logos almost becomes it own being separate from God. A spiritual Jesus-like figure. Yet, Philo does describe the Logos as God. This contradiction is important to not lose sight of the divine unity. The logos though at times seems separate is a function of the transcendent God. It is the immanent part of God. The logos is the creative power of God and supreme being is the regal power. It is a multidimensional articulation of the ineffable. There is much hellenistic similarities but it is his directed narration and the dialectical style that is imperative for the continuity from hellenism to Islamism.          

Philo’s model is esoteric. It mirrors much of his successors in their rhetorical excellence. The consistency through Jewish philosophical culture either is exclusive to the philosophers or is exclusive to the people. The philosopher speaks on behalf of the people. He is the preacher of the community. He explains the difficult passages. The philosopher’s goal is to confront the complexity and counter it with a Judaized response. Philo was the first figure to do so. Only someone who has read the opposition can fight back. The philosopher’s interest in metaphysical matters enables him to coherently strike back. Philo demonstrated this credibility and savvy ingenuity to charge the superiority of Judaism.